Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 16:16:30 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Ray Mihm <ray.mihm@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Milan Obuch <net@dino.sk> Subject: Re: vrf support in FreeBSD Message-ID: <446122CE.7010805@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <1aa142960605091500q6aca79d8l8eb2cdd0ff82ffe3@mail.gmail.com> References: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620438CAE3@electron.jnpr.net> <4460D595.8000408@elischer.org> <1aa142960605091325j151df1f6j909ee9ca3ae0ed75@mail.gmail.com> <200605092239.46594.net@dino.sk> <446103AD.5020006@elischer.org> <1aa142960605091500q6aca79d8l8eb2cdd0ff82ffe3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ray Mihm wrote: > Using ipfw tables is essentially a non-starter, IMHO. How would > routing protocols use ipfw based tables, for example? Marko's work > touches a lot of files, but I don't think it's heavy weight. > > I also think using Marko's idea and Jails would allow create the > notion of a logical system and multiple such logical systems may be > configured on a single FreeBSD system. > > Regards, > > Ray. Don't get me wrong.. I very much like vimage, and it is a great pitty that it (in the form it is in now) is basically incompatible in concept with freeBSD 5+ (where most things are modules)(*). I've even done some small work on prototyping how one MIGHT be able to make it happen, but for what I want (just be able to have some packets use an alternative routing table), having ipfw fwd them according to a table does just fine. (*) The problem is that moving all globals to a structure only works if you know what globals are linked in. If you load a module, you need to expand the structure. This is problematic to say the least. The same problem has been solved with Thread-local-storage using hooks in the compiler and linker but I don't think we can do that in the kernel. (at least not easily).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?446122CE.7010805>